New licence law - a summary

Discussion of all official legislative, legal, licencing and operating matters

Moderator: John Boucher

User avatar
RV4ker (RIP)
The Big Four K
The Big Four K
Posts: 5386
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: The Coves & FAVB

Postby RV4ker (RIP) » Fri Aug 12, 2005 1:06 pm

Fairy Flycatcher wrote: FVR comm?
Assume VFR Comm? -
Yip but is almost same amout of work and worth nothing in PPL world.
Fairy Flycatcher wrote: I have seen the sample questions. I think even I could answer it with just a little bit of studying, and my experience with 3-axis is a bit low.
Yip I could answer "some" as well, but they will require some serious study to pass 3 of the four required. I have the self study notes and given a couple weeks to go through them without disturbances (work/family) I could comfortably pass - I have been trying to find the time to go through them without those disturbances since 1999 :shock: :oops: . Techical on turbine engines, King Air 200 techinical, archaic navaids etc... are tough if you never been exposed to them. Also some of the questions are highly theoretical and are designed to "catch" you if you have general idea.
Fairy Flycatcher wrote: I think maybe VFR comm will sort this out as well?
Yip but is almost same amout of work and worth nothing in PPL world.
Fairy Flycatcher wrote: Funny thing is, PPL instructors get paid much worse than MPL instructors, and as you say, many just use it as an hour building exercise. How come the general training on PPL is still better than on MPL?
Supply and demand. Plenty low hr "commies" trying to land the airline jobs and will work for nothing building hrs. Sylabus is more structured and in Comm world people talk plenty about where they been taught, so instruction tends to be driven by the student as much as the instructor/school. I changed instructors when I was doing PPL 'cos I did not like the instructors RAF Attitude. Often CFI is a high timer who does peer to peer review on his instructors every X hrs. Think there is plenty to be learnt from PPL structure by MPL type schools, but the circumstances are very different.????
Fairy Flycatcher wrote: It has been a bit quiet on the forum. Redeye said he will miss a bit of debate. Can you think of another topic which will get the blood pressure up as much as this :?: :twisted: :D :D
:shock:
I got a couple :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Insurance for NTSC
CAA
ATNS
Licensing
Part 96
Flipping
3 seater trikes :wink:
User avatar
Junkie
The sky is all mine
The sky is all mine
Posts: 455
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:01 am
Location: Killed in microlight accident 23rd December 2006

Postby Junkie » Mon Aug 15, 2005 4:39 pm

Some comment on the Class rating for "Conventional microlight aeroplane" -

... the way I figure from what Im reading, I could easily go and get checked out on a Basic. Eagle, Shadow, Beaver and Kolb and voila :!: ive a class rating as long as im not shy of the 100 Fixed Wing Hr's - but ill still be along way off flying the new breeds - its open to abuse and im probably going to get shot outta the sky for this

Now wouldnt it make a lot more sense to define the spectrum of flying & "systems" skills required rather then the named machines, and group requirements into 4 or 5 categories, eg

:arrow: Basic configuration - Fixed pitch, limited/no flaps, std configuration, Weight, engine power/type and speed limited to xx - i.e the real microlights :)
:arrow: Extended configuration - Semi/Full flaps, engine power/ type does not exceed 80 HP, fixed pitch - next level (eg Bush Babies, kitfox, types)
:arrow: Advanced configurations - Composite or Ally Cans, Systems, HP exceeds 80, variable / contstant speed prop, SYSTEMS (eg Stings, Jabis', etc)
:arrow: Tail wheel/ FLoats /Skis - anyhing goes
:arrow: Advanced flying skills - Unusual attitudes training, Aerobatics, Aeortowing, etc

The above may not be a ideal groupings and does not dictate / indicate any order in which these must be done

Wot yer think... have retreated to my bunker and await the first bombardment :? :shock:
J.U.N.K.I.E 's
Finest used aviation parts in all the Universe
No credit / No returns
ZU-ANE

Postby ZU-ANE » Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:54 pm

Hi ianrw, I do not think there is enough idiots out there to just hop into a unfamiliar aircraft and take off. Anyone with some sense would first familiarise himself with the aircraft before taking it on, but i must agree there are some realy advanced homebuilds out there that would need stricter control.
User avatar
RV4ker (RIP)
The Big Four K
The Big Four K
Posts: 5386
Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 7:48 pm
Location: The Coves & FAVB

Postby RV4ker (RIP) » Mon Aug 15, 2005 8:57 pm

Maybe systems type rating similar to Bliks...
User avatar
skybound®
Frequent Flyer
Frequent Flyer
Posts: 1223
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 12:51 pm
Location: Port Elizabeth

Postby skybound® » Tue Aug 16, 2005 10:47 am

Hi FF

I have offered my comments at http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3192
User avatar
Fairy Flycatcher
The sky is all mine
The sky is all mine
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: In the sky or under the trees - Durban

Postby Fairy Flycatcher » Tue Aug 16, 2005 12:36 pm

Hi skybound

Thank you very, very much for your input. The first decent comments I have received in over 3 months!

I agree with you on many points, and will spend some time answering your questions when I am back in the office on Thursday.

Just want to quickly point out that Part 96 Authorization is not called a Com licence for this very reason. You are limited to only doing very specific work within the borders of South Africa, and may offer charter, both scheduled and unscheduled, for passengers or cargo, with your licence. Flips have been put here, but may be scrapped from NTCA alltogether, and has been suspended for the time being AIC 18.35.

Part 96 Authorization, is designed to ensure that the guys who do crop-spraying, aerial photography, game counting, advertising, fire flighting, for reward, is at least a notch better than those pilots who can do it under their RPL, but not receive reward.

Most of these things is a bit of a self-eliminating exercise in any case, and I think that it is great that we are a little bit less, rather than a little bit more regulated.

More info soon, and thank you very much again.
Annie
www.comefly.co.za
Flying is a hard way to earn an easy living
User avatar
Fairy Flycatcher
The sky is all mine
The sky is all mine
Posts: 478
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: In the sky or under the trees - Durban

Postby Fairy Flycatcher » Thu Aug 18, 2005 10:25 am

skybound wrote:Okay FF, I have had some time sitting in airports to read through some of the TS.

Herewith some comments/considerations:

Normal RPL
62.04.3

1
- 'not for renumeration' and 'engaged in non revenue flights'.
Are these two saying the same thing or are we doubling up what we are saying to emphasize the difference to Com?
This is the prefered wording from CARCOM. They do have a bit of a chip on their shoulder about anything "commercial" I guess CAA is a commercial venture (they take money for licence etc.) MISASA is a commercial venture (take money for advertising and membership) The microlight manufacturers and engine and prop and instrument people are charging for their services. Let's close them all!!!

Not a dig at you skybound. Just fed-up with the stupidity. If you must do it all for "the love of the sport", who's going to pay the bills? How do you do it Redeye, and where will our experts come from.

I do it for the love of the sport, but I ALSO make a living from it, so this gives me a chance to become a "fundi" in certain areas so I can share it with you.

I think this is a "heirachy protection racket" from the CAA's side. :evil: :evil:

-Conventional Mircolight
Is there a definition this can refer to?
This is quite a funny one. The definition in the Volume two of the SA-CAR reads: " microlight aeroplane" means an aeroplance the empty mass of which does not exceed 450 kilograms"

The technical Standards, Volume 3 of the SA-CAR has a very specific definition. This puts the microlight aircraft at a 450kg MAUW for a two seater land, and specify a minimum flying speed at maximum take-off weight to be less than 65km/h. (NTCA - 24) Some other weight restrictions for seaplane or amphibian (480kg MAUW), and much less for single seaters (300kg and 330kg)

The Part 62, NTCA pilot licencing, then goes further, to devide this into two sections. Conventional control (rudder, ailerons or spoilerons) and weight shift controlled (billow, roach, sweepback)
3
-National Standard Level 1 exams
Is there a definition of these? I see in the Com they refer to a level 2 as well.


The subject matter of the exams remain very simmilar between licence holders and instructors (no ALTP or major charters for trikes), so we have devised a national standard exam, using automatically selected multiple choise questions, unique to every exam sitting. This is a system which is now the National Standard for PPL.

My skygod is busy compiling the questions for these exams, with help from a couple of people. We will have a level 1 exam, easier, good basic knowledge, for the initial MPL/ RPL and one more difficult, which is a level 2 exam, in depth, testing fine-tuned knowledge, for instructors and Part 96 Authorization.
4 (4) Stability
Add (f) Anhederal and Dihedaral (sp?)

Good one, thanks
4.2 Air Law
(2) Add 'and how to maintain the file of Notams/AIC's etc
Got it
4.3 Aviation Met
(15) Add (d) Upper Air Wind Charts


Will look into it, but why?
4.5 General Nav
(7) (m) Add .... and using electronic offerings such as File 2 Fly
Look into this one as well

62.04.3.5 Practical Training (Comments apply to both weighshift and 3 axis syllabi)

Ex 1
Add (6) Rigging and derigging.
This has been added as a full endorsement exercise, exercise 30.
Ex 2
8- Assume this would also cover discussing use of chocks and engine care.
Nice one, thanks
Ex 15
(e) What if it was a PPL to RPL conversion - does one still need 6 hours?

The law states that the hour requirements may be relaxed for a current PPL, or for trikes, for hang gliding experience.
Ex 19
Add (9) Hazards (Think it warrants individual attention)
Thanks
Ex 21
Minor - There are two para (5)'s
Add between (6) and (7) - Pax Briefing

Ex 22
Minor - There is no paragraph number 8
Add between (7) and (9) - Pax Briefing
I am aware of formatting errors. Came to dislike autoformating on Word intensly.
Ex 27
A
(2)(g) Does a GPS qualify as a Navaid? Can they use it?
There also does not appear to be a requirement for a Solo Nav? Has it been dropped or did I miss it somewhere?
It is not allowed as a primary navigational aid. But many people fly with them, and need to know how to use them. Many, many people screw up in strong wind, going in circles around the airfield etc.

Solo requirements for Nav is in the CAR, and not the CATS. The same requirement for dual as for solo.
62.04.4
2 - Why is a GrC not allowed to invigilate a theoretical exam?
This is a law. In PPL a grade III instructor may also not do it. Personally I think it is bull, but for now we have to get a system working before we can tackle aditional issuesl.
62.04.5
1.2(16) ...skill test of not less than 100NM and not less than 30NM.....
Think first one should read of not more than 100NM....

62.05.5
1.2(16)
Same as above.
Nope. You have to fly more than 100NM on your whole XC, and you have to have 2 turn-points each at least 30NM from your training airfield. Caught my skygod as well, but if you read it carefully you will understand.



Thanks a lot for all your input. I see you have really had a look.
Annie
www.comefly.co.za
Flying is a hard way to earn an easy living

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests